The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Wed May 01, 2019 4:34 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:08 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:25 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:45 pm

I didn't see this when I wrote the last post to Age. I'm guessing that given if he holds that no word needs defining in what he responded to you, I'm not sure he'll comply with what I asked. If not, then there is nothing we can do to prove anything to him. I gave a reason why it is his burden to define the terms while not necessary for the proof of expansion. Maybe this will help.
In case you were unaware "logik" was going to ask me what is the definition for EVERY word forever more to PROVE that NOTHING can be gained and KNOWN from and through language. To "logik" the only thing that works in the Universe is 'symbolic logic'.

"logik" said they will stop asking to define words when there is a word that does not "NEED" defining. I stated that OBVIOUSLY there is NO word that "NEEDS" defining, (but people WANT words defined. I also pointed out that now "logik" would stop, that is; If they are an honest person. The Truth of this became quickly OBVIOUS to SEE.

Now, OF COURSE the defining of words, in relation to what you are talking about, is EXTREMELY and VERY NECESSARY, especially in relation to what this topic is ACTUALLY ABOUT.

By the way IF you asked me some clarifying questions about what my ACTUAL VIEWS are here, instead of MAKING ASSUMPTIONS about what they COULD BE, then you would NOT have to write all of that what you just did here.
He was mocking what you are incidentally doing by feeding it back at you. If you can't assume 'anything' as you can't overcome with concern, his questions justify HOW you are coming across.
It is NOT about "can't" assume 'anything'. It is about it is NOT necessary to assume 'any thing'.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:08 pm
IF you are adamant on being so absolute on assumptions, then you'd have to question everything to show that your own approach is doomed to fail.
But WHY do you assume/belief that I would have to question EVERY thing?

I do NOT have to question any thing at all, NOW.

I am only ask clarifying questions for things like what facts do you use, as evidence to back up and support your ASSUMPTIONS or BELIEFS that the Universe is expanding, for example, so I KNOW EXACTLY what to counter and SHOW is incorrect. If I was, for example, to ASSUME what you use as facts and evidence, then I might counter some thing, which did NOT even need countering or was not even there to begin with, and then people can use my WRONG ways as a way to make their own BELIEFS even stronger.

Let us try this. Imagine if we want to LEARN about and DISCOVER things about the Universe, Itself, from our perspective without having ANY prior assumptions nor beliefs at all about what COULD BE the case.

If you are at least able to IMAGINE being OPEN like this, then let us just LOOK AT what IS. If we have already agreed on the names that we will use in our discussion about and for the things that we see, then we can proceed.

So, imagining standing on earth we look up at a cloudless, from our perspective, night sky. As far as we can see there are stars and relatively black space between those stars. As far as we can see with the physical eyes, through a telescope or not, there is NO limit/boundary. I ask you; If there was a limit/boundary, then what could it be made up of, how thick could it be, and if it were not infinitely thick, then what could be on the other side of it?

From the conceptual vision/"eyes" what do you see?
Is your conceptual vision block by some thing or does it go on forever?

If it is blocked by some thing, then what is it?
If it goes on forever/infinitely, the okay.

If you would like to answer these questions and continue doing this, then great. We can SEE what comes from it.
If, however, you do not, then so be it.

But the point so far is we do NOT 'have to' ASSUME any thing. We already have an idea of what the definitions are of the words we are using in our discussion about what we SEE when we OBSERVE just 'what IS', in relation to the Universe. And because we are NOT closed at all by prior assumptions and beliefs, if we have any query about what another means with the words they use, then we can just type the word into a search engine, observe what definition is provide and then see if we agree with and/or accept that definition or not. Then we just clarify with the other if this is correct or not. (But it makes things much quicker, simpler, and easier if we had done this earlier. This looking in a dictionary for definitions is NOT how the one called "logik" works because that one BELIEVES that the answers are in 'symbolic and/or numeric logic', and not in words).
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:08 pm
I opened a thread for your concern on 'assumptions' called, On Denoting and Assuming.... There you can take on this issue without interfering in the general process of different topics. It is its own topic and might be more fruitful to separate this issue. You are appropriate to think this as a 'beginner' but come across like a kid going through his "Terrible Twos" where they always ask 'why' of every little thing.
I have a VIEW on this, which is: EVERY child is born a natural philosopher. They are born wondering, and with a very strong desire to learn more and anew. They are the ones with a True love-of-wisdom (a love of becoming wiser). However, and very sadly, this involves being Truly OPEN and because very young children are VERY OPEN, the human brain takes in what ever is around it from the environment, and then can all to quickly also LEARN to BELIEVE things, and then "JUSTIFY" things also, even if those things are completely wrong, false, and/or incorrect.

When children at the ages of say what you call "terrible twos", which calling a child at about two years old "terrible" is just about one of the most terrible things that as a so called "responsible" adult could do, but I do digress, when these young children are just doing their natural thing by just WANTING to learn more they OBVIOUSLY they would just ask "WHY?" and "WHY?" and "WHY?", which is just what a naturally curious person would do. This is what just about EVERY young child DOES. However, because adults tell them, STOP ASKING WHY, and, ask them, in obviously 'do not ask me again voices', WHY DO YOU KEEP ASKING WHY? Then, unfortunately, children can LEARN VERY to quickly to JUST STOP - ASKING WHY. The natural ponderer/inquirer/philosopher within ALL children becomes repeatedly stifled, until that person completely dies, and more unfortunately grows up into an adult in this 'dead' way.

So called "education" does NOT help in this regard also, as children are inevitably teased, ridiculed, and punished for NOT knowing things, and so, literally, become FAILURES in the eyes of the system, and their peers. The fear of making mistakes in learning PREVENTS them from wanting to learn more and the BELIEF that they are, now, "stupid" STOPS them from wanting to learn more, or anew.

But anyway I will LOOK AT that thread, if I remember.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:08 pm
I'm not calling you a child but saying that you are relatively a 'newbie' with respect to philosophical etiquette on this topic when you bring it up in this or other threads that bog down the general communication.
That, maybe contrary to popular BELIEF, is a compliment to me.

Being a 'newbie' and NOT just an 'oldie' and just re-repeating the same 'old' incorrect, wrong, and false information, which has been passed on and keeps on getting passed on down the line, on this topic is welcoming news for me.

This reminds me of when the 'newbie' VIEW that the sun does NOT revolve around the earth first started being expressed. Although it was a seemingly very annoying VIEW and maybe did not "fit in with" the so called 'philosophical etiquette' in its time, it is much BETTER to keep persisting with what one KNOWS IS RIGHT, instead of just copying what is OBVIOUSLY WRONG.

So, if mentioning that it is OBVIOUSLY your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which is what is PREVENTING and STOPPING you from moving on past the relatively 'VERY old' perspective that the Universe is expanding is what you THINK/BELIEVE is "bogging down" the general communication' on this topic, then that might be something like what was being proposed to that one when they were just TRYING TO SHOW how the sun does NOT revolve around the earth. That person was probably seen as "bogging down" the 'general communication' in their time ALSO.

After all, how dare any person say any thing different than what is being talked about by such a "special" and "gifted" group of people as "scientists" are. If "we" say the Universe IS expanding and that the sun DOES revolve around the earth, then how dare any one say any thing different.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:08 pm
So I hope that thread can at least permit you to delve more into it with sincerity.
Okay thank you.

But since we are in this thread which is called: The expanding Universe -- Why and How we know it is expanding, then I will once again just ask for the ACTUAL EVIDENCE, which actually provides PROOF and SHOWS How 'you' KNOW the Universe is expanding.

The ACTUAL EVIDENCE for "Why" you KNOW the Universe is expanding is ALREADY OBVIOUS, and so I do NOT need to keep asking "why" nor for EVIDENCE to that one.

Oh by the way if i do NOT respond in that "assuming" thread in a few day or so, then can you please just remind me about it. My memory is not as good as it used to be.

Age
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Thu May 02, 2019 3:32 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
LOGICAL PROOF that Space MUST expand

I am at one precise place in space.

There is a space in front of me to which is at ANY sized distance.

I want to MOVE into that space. This means to "displace" the volume of space I was IN to get to another volume of space.

Either I JUMP to that new space in zero measure of any time or it takes time for me to get there.
Are you standing on a material object like a planet earth, or are you just in space?

By the way do you BELIEVE that 'space expands', or ASSUME it is true?

This is a counter-argument by assuming that it either ISN'T known as true or indeterminate. It's not a formal one but can be put into one.


HOW can just two very simple, straightforward clarifying questions, ask for clarity, BE a counter-argument. An 'argument' is made up of premises and conclusions. A 'question' is ask for clarity. The two are VERY, VERY DIFFERENT things.

When I just ask a question, is there some sort of ASSUMING going on in the "back of" the thinking, which could be leading you to see things, which really are NOT there?

By the way there was NO assuming going on in this thinking, which I was aware of. I also have absolutely NO idea what the 'it' refers to, nor about what is or is NOT true or indeterminate. I honestly have NO idea what you are talking about or referring to here. Would you like to elaborate and explain?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:30 pm
The idea is to ask 'scientifically' by each of our own experience what it takes to take a step in any direction to some other different SPACE.
Remember I am in NO way a "scientific" person. i am just a very simple person, who sees things very simply. So, I need to be taken very slowly and very simply to understand and see 'that' what you are talking about.

So, when say some thing like step in "any" direction to some other different space, to understand what this means I, literally, need to know what you are talking about. For example are you talking about being on planet earth and taking a step? If so, then I can NOT do it in "any" direction, but I can in the directions that it is possible. Also, I do NOT see what you mean by "different" 'SPACE'. What i see when I take a step forwards, backwards, side ways, or anywhere in between them this human body has just moved and it could be said is now 'occupying' a different place, but NOT a different space. To me 'space' is just the distance between and around matter. 'That' what can NOT be seen is what makes up this space, or distance, although this space or distance can be seen, in one sense.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:30 pm
It shows that if you exhaust all possibly imagined scenarios, we have to conclude that we cannot move if there were no such thing as space being constantly added (an 'expansion', that is).


If you say so, but there is a LOT MORE to discussed and clarified BEFORE I would or even could take this step, or jump, to this conclusion.

When I take a step on planet earth this body just moves in some direction to another what is sometimes known as "another place". When I did and do this I certainly have not, as yet anyway come to the conclusion that I could NOT move if there were no such thing as space being constantly added. But I can clearly SEE how space (a distance) has been added, or expanded, from between the matter of this human body and the matter of another body from which I stepped or moved AWAY FROM. But I can also clearly SEE that space (a distance) has been taken away from, or contracted, from between this body of matter and another body of matter, which I stepped or moved CLOSER TO. To me, 'space' itself is not being constantly added. 'Space' is just being constantly 'dis-placed' by the constant-change of 'place', which ALL physical and material objects are constantly-moving "into" and "out" of.

Is that what you are TRYING TO get me to SEE and UNDERSTAND?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:30 pm
This is a POSSIBILITY to test, not a conclusion.
Okay, fair enough.

What is the definition of the word 'time', which we could then POSSIBLY 'test', to actually discover if 'time' does or does NOT exist?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:30 pm
You either instantly GET to the place you are going (a 'jump') or you get there gradually. In math, this is called either 'discrete' or 'continuous'. In science, it is called 'quantum' or 'relative'. [Quanta means things are in whole number representations. Some might think of things as having a 'smallest' unit of space, for instance. If it is 'Relative' then there is no whole unit of space because you can start with any and there is always something 'relatively' greater or 'relatively' smaller no matter what size you begin with.
But this, to me, appears to be "TRYING TO" make complex and hard 'that', which is essentially very simple and easy. But adult human beings do have a tendency to do this unnecessary action quite often.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
Age wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
this then allows me to get to the space ahead of me in some positive time greater than zero units. But this would have to be true of any positive distance no matter how small. Now if I began staying at the one spot for any duration, I am moving 0 distance/time before I begin moving to the new spot. To get to this different place would require I go from 0 to some X velocity greater than 0 in order to at least move. But in order to go from any non-speed to any positive one is 'acceleration'.

If I recall correctly you have already expressed a similar idea previously, correct?
Yes. I've done this in too many places I can't reference with ease of memory alone.

Okay.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:30 pm
I'll separate the questions and answers since some of the others later may be nullified by earlier response. It is also easier to handle. So if I don't answer something later, ask me again. It might help if you hold off asking too many questions at once so that you don't need to repeat yourself. It is hard to cover all questions when I have other things I have to do in a given time.
This 'WHEN TO STEP IN' EXACTLY to ask a clarifying question i have found is so much harder to decide in a writing forum like this, compared to when speaking directly "face-to-face". Although the decision of when to do it then can also be very "tricky". Do I let the "other" finish EVERY thing that they want to say, because the conclusion might explain ALL of the seemingly inconsistencies and contradictions along the way. Or, do I bring to light the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions along the way by asking clarifying questions, which then could help us both proceed to a conclusion, which could be true, right, and correct for each of us?

Age
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Thu May 02, 2019 4:37 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 4:13 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
However, since I am never not moving,
What do you mean by 'never not moving'?

Is this before or after 'acceleration' STARTED?

If this is 'after', then were you never not moving also 'before' acceleration started?
Good question. This I once asked but take for granted already knowing enough geometry and math. If you make a time-velocity graph, with time on the x-axis and velocity on the y-axis, changing velocity would be a curve and would mean something is accelerating. This can be a parabola shape in which the 'vertices' of its lowest point can exist at zero but the acceleration can be continuous from negative infinity to infinity. This takes understanding geometry and, helpful if you know mathematical Calculus.
Just imagine that i know nothing.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 4:13 pm
But for your concern without the needed depth at this point, if you just presume it questionable and justified as 'impossible', then no movement is ever possible because you can ask this about changing acceleration (an acceleration of acceleration called a 'jerk') and an infinity of such changes of changes. Thus IF you are right to doubt some original acceleration, this holds true of acceleration of acceleration of acceleration of.....(times infinity). If this were true, then NO movement could exist at all.
Lucky then I did NOT presume any thing nor doubt any thing also. I just asked you three clarifying question ONLY.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 4:13 pm
What is true (but you may not require trusting it here) is that you cannot go from zero place to another by some constant velocity (zero being a constant one itself).

Okay, if you say it is true, then it must be, correct?

But if the truth be known from my perspective I am understanding less than I am more now.

Is say 10 miles per hour, for example, one 'constant velocity' like "zero" is a constant one also?

If yes, then I would think that you could go from zero place to another place by some constant velocity of say 10 miles per hour.

But maybe I do NOT understand what you mean by "zero place" or I am NOT understanding some thing else here.

What do you mean by "zero place" exactly?

I also still do NOT know when you say: I am at one precise place in space. If that means a human body out in space away from an object like earth is, or just when the physical human body is just 'standing on earth' for example. Or, if it means some thing else?

Would you care to elaborate and/or clarify this for me please?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 4:13 pm


WHY would you HAVE TO BE 'accelerating to remain in one spot'?

Is your definition of 'accelerating' here increasing in speed? Or, just moving?

'Acceleration' is some times used to define the increase of movement and not just the movement.
Again, appropriately good question but preferably needs mathematical Calculus to express and prove. But to give you an intuitive example, think of record player or disc. The record can spin because it is made up of things that don't actually spin on one exact point in space but makes circles. When you make the disc imaginarily so large, like that of a galaxy, the outer parts have to move very rapidly to keep up with those on the same radius closer to the center. But it can't because you can't have infinite speed.
'What' can't?

And WHY can NOT 'that', whatever you are referring to, do what you say 'it' "can't" do?

Are you saying the outer parts of any thing circling can NOT keep up with those on the same radius closer to the center?
If yes, then you just gave the example of a record, which can do this.
If no, then what are you saying.

Also, how and why did the concept, assumption, belief, or conclusion that you can NOT have infinite speed come into this?

All I asked was: WHY would you HAVE TO BE 'accelerating to remain in one spot'?

Is your definition of 'accelerating' here increasing in speed? Or, just moving?


And then stated: 'Acceleration' is some times used to define the increase of movement and not just the movement.

So, since you did NOT answer these clarifying questions I am still unclear. When you say 'acceleration' are you talking about 'just moving' OR 'increasing in speed'?

Absolutely NO amount of numbers, maths, and/or mathematical calculus(es?) is going to clear up for me what you are TALKING ABOUT when you use the word 'acceleration' here.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 4:13 pm
If the outer parts of a galaxy are moving faster than the inner parts than because the size of galaxy is FINITE, and NOT infinite, I am NOT sure WHAT this has to do with NOT being able to have infinite speed.
This argument is similar to trying to imagine, like our ancestors did, that the stars are what is moving around the Earth rather than that the Earth is spinning. IF the Earth wasn't spinning, then the stars further out would be going in gigantic large circles around us no matter how big. But if this were the case, there could be no MAXIMUM speed limit.

Which in a sense there is NOT. If things are moving faster than the speed of light, which is said to be a "MAXIMUM speed limit", then there is NO 'maximum speed limit' or a faster "maximum speed limit" then there is from the one that is now presumed to be the case. Anyway, that is another issue for another discussion, unless of course you want to clarify this for me now. If the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, then does this actually mean that there are things actually moving faster than the speed of light?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 4:13 pm
Does this suffice as an example?
An example of what exactly?

Maybe if you explain what you are TRYING TO show me, then I would know if it is an example that suffices or not.

I did ask you before:
Do you want to prove to me that the Universe is expanding? Or,
Do you want to listen to my VIEW and ALL of the details, which will explain HOW I came to this VIEW?


IF you want to prove to me that the Universe is expanding, or some thing else, then just say so. And, if it is some thing else, then just say what that is.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 4:13 pm
Points can spin in circles around a point that doesn't move, but it cannot be the center point an move without spinning. As such, either there is no such thing as a point where other things could circle around it or the point itself is spinning. If a zero-sized point were spinning, what possible speed could it be but infinite?
I have NO idea. I am having trouble conceptualizing a "zero-sized point" spinning first.

Is there an ACTUAL size to 'zero'?

Another factor that you may not be aware of is that ANYTHING moving in circles OR spinning, has an acceleration that is directed perpendicular to any radius or line drawn through it.

Hang on, what is the first or other factor, which I was not aware of, or am now still not aware of?

I am still TRYING TO answer your clarifying question asked to me about what speed of possible speed zero sized point could spin at.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 4:13 pm
This requires some basic mechanical physics to demonstrate but again, you need some math, geometry, and an understanding of Newton's physics at least.
Oh well that counts me out completely then.

But just out of curiosity why would I "NEED" these things for? What is the actual thing that you are TRYING TO show to me or prove to me here first?

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1404
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat May 04, 2019 11:31 am

To finally respond to the first post page 12 without having to repeat it, I agree with everything you said and that suffices to link to the thread on "Denoting and Assuming..." for which we can just continue there to discuss.

I'll now read and begin to respond to the next post after that that just deals more with this particular topic.4

EDIT: AND, by the way, you expressed your points very well there, in my opinion. So if you are insane by anyone else's standard here, I must be too.
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Sat May 04, 2019 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1404
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat May 04, 2019 11:59 am

Age wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 3:32 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 pm


Are you standing on a material object like a planet earth, or are you just in space?

By the way do you BELIEVE that 'space expands', or ASSUME it is true?

This is a counter-argument by assuming that it either ISN'T known as true or indeterminate. It's not a formal one but can be put into one.


HOW can just two very simple, straightforward clarifying questions, ask for clarity, BE a counter-argument. An 'argument' is made up of premises and conclusions. A 'question' is ask for clarity. The two are VERY, VERY DIFFERENT things.

When I just ask a question, is there some sort of ASSUMING going on in the "back of" the thinking, which could be leading you to see things, which really are NOT there?

By the way there was NO assuming going on in this thinking, which I was aware of. I also have absolutely NO idea what the 'it' refers to, nor about what is or is NOT true or indeterminate. I honestly have NO idea what you are talking about or referring to here. Would you like to elaborate and explain?
Because this is just you and me talking on this now, it might be best to take a step back then considering this. But I'll come back to this hopefully in a round-about way with you maybe. I was responding more to everyone on this topic assuming only a thought experiment to why I believe it rational to infer that there is always MORE of something between any two points than we can explain EVEN if we think we've exhausted all points. I believe it is a good argument if I expanded on it properly -- something that I only 'intuitively' expressed in a small post summarily without completion.

The argument I am thinking is based on an original argument that begun with Zeno's paradox of the Arrow and rooted in the similar problems about the origins of the problem of 'rational numbers' that lead to the 'irrational numbers'. It all relates to those 'incompleteness theorems' many of us have been speaking on in various threads here. ALL are based on one main concept:

Contradiction.

In relation to space, if we take ANY two different points, we can imagine that no matter which two different points there are that we choose, there will always be another one that we can find in between those two no matter how close the first two points are. In geometry and math, this can be summarized by what is called the "Intermediate Value Theorem". Intuitively it is easy to imagine this but is actually a very very hard thing to prove but has been (and why they have called it a 'theorem')

We won't presume (pre-assume) this a 'theorem' but something that we might think as just a maybe true thing. So I want to ask you if this idea makes sense so far? That is, do you agree, disagree, or are uncertain of the idea that....

In between ANY two points in space, no matter how close they are, we can always find another point.

Do you agree, disagree, are neither or confused?

[Here we are just beginning from scratch about what you and I can agree or disagree to about this simple idea about space to begin/re-begin our journey. I am flexible and so this is by no means the only way to refresh this discussion from. If you prefer a different approach, then just suggest what you might prefer instead. I don't want you to think i'm 'leading' you when I only mean to be trying to work this out as though we are the only ones in the universe wondering about this problem.]

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat May 04, 2019 1:13 pm

We currently cannot go below the Planck scale but I would say in principle that there is always a space between two points no
matter how close they might be but without the ability to go all the way to infinite regress it cannot actually be demonstrated

Comparison with math is misleading since it is a fact that there is always another number between any other two
Irrational numbers belong to an infinite set and so unlike the physical world this question has already been solved

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1404
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat May 04, 2019 1:36 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 1:13 pm
We currently cannot go below the Planck scale but I would say in principle that there is always a space between two points no
matter how close they might be but without the ability to go all the way to infinite regress it cannot actually be demonstrated

Comparison with math is misleading since it is a fact that there is always another number between any other two
Irrational numbers belong to an infinite set and so unlike the physical world this question has already been solved
The Planck scale is just an arbitrary selective choice of a unit measure. It gets confused by many misinterpreting this to mean there literally is no REAL size smaller. If it were, you'd run into paradoxes and at least relates to the concern about the discovery of irrational numbers. This is the point though. Although I'll wait for Age's reflection on this, you summarized the concerning point I'm attempting to get at:

Because it leads to an infinite regress in math it can or does so in real space and thus it introduces issues concerning the possibility of expansion. The concepts of continuity and the intermediate value theorem are also 'theorems' which suggest logical proof of this, not merely something necessarily indemonstrable.

I can point out other things but also don't want to leave out Age on this discussion. So whatever we could discuss, I'll separate this to respect Age unless he opts to follow.

Age
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sat May 04, 2019 3:02 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 11:59 am
Age wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 3:32 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:30 pm

This is a counter-argument by assuming that it either ISN'T known as true or indeterminate. It's not a formal one but can be put into one.


HOW can just two very simple, straightforward clarifying questions, ask for clarity, BE a counter-argument. An 'argument' is made up of premises and conclusions. A 'question' is ask for clarity. The two are VERY, VERY DIFFERENT things.

When I just ask a question, is there some sort of ASSUMING going on in the "back of" the thinking, which could be leading you to see things, which really are NOT there?

By the way there was NO assuming going on in this thinking, which I was aware of. I also have absolutely NO idea what the 'it' refers to, nor about what is or is NOT true or indeterminate. I honestly have NO idea what you are talking about or referring to here. Would you like to elaborate and explain?
Because this is just you and me talking on this now, it might be best to take a step back then considering this. But I'll come back to this hopefully in a round-about way with you maybe.
After reading again what you and I wrote here, I can see that I left some thing out.
I wrote: By the way do you BELIEVE that 'space expands', or ASSUME it is true? I should have also added, 'or THINK it is true?'
You replied: This is a counter-argument by assuming that it either ISN'T known as true or indeterminate. It's not a formal one but can be put into one.

To me, my questions were NOT asked in any "counter-argument" way but just to gain of what perspective you are coming from. The three different perspectives that one comes from, which are capitalized, can have a huge bearing on how to further discuss things, from my perspective. Questions asked, seeking clarification, was all they were. They were NOT "counter-arguments" at all.

Once I have clarified what perspective you (or another) is coming from, then I can decide how I will 'counter-argue' if at all I feel it necessary to.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 11:59 am
I was responding more to everyone on this topic assuming only a thought experiment to why I believe it rational to infer that there is always MORE of something between any two points than we can explain EVEN if we think we've exhausted all points. I believe it is a good argument if I expanded on it properly -- something that I only 'intuitively' expressed in a small post summarily without completion.

The argument I am thinking is based on an original argument that begun with Zeno's paradox of the Arrow and rooted in the similar problems about the origins of the problem of 'rational numbers' that lead to the 'irrational numbers'. It all relates to those 'incompleteness theorems' many of us have been speaking on in various threads here.
Some one in this forum mentioned these "zeno's paradoxs" previously, so I looked them up. From what I can remember there is NO actual 'paradox' at all there. It is just the way that they are worded that deceives, intentionally or unintentionally, people to see things "wrongly", if that is the correct word to use here.

To me, a 'paradox' is just a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.

To me, the statement; ' 'We', human beings, do NOT need money to live' IS a paradox.

The three things that are quoted as being zenos are just statements/propositions that, intentionally or unintentionally, lead to WRONG conclusions.

1. Arrow "paradox": The thing is there is NO actual 'instant', other than a conceptual one, or one caught on film, photo, picture, or print. There is, however, ALWAYS 'change' instead of any ACTUAL 'instant', which can be actually 'experienced or observed', any way.

2. As for the 'achilles and some tortoise', the deceptive words here are 'has been'. In the conclusion sentence: Thus, whenever Achilles arrives somewhere the tortoise HAS BEEN, he still has some distance to go before he can even reach the tortoise. There creates a subtle deception within you in thinking about 'ARRIVING' where the tortoise 'HAS BEEN'. If, however, the statement was about 'ARRIVING' where the tortoise 'IS', then there is NO issue here at all.

3. Dichtomoy "paradox's" conclusion; Hence, the trip cannot even begin. BUT, if it HAS begun, then there is MOVEMENT, or, if there is MOVEMENT, then the trip CAN and HAS even begun.

To me, these three statements/propositions are NOT paradoxes at all. They just use language that subtlety deceives, again maybe intentionally or unintentionally.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 11:59 am
ALL are based on one main concept:

Contradiction.

In relation to space, if we take ANY two different points, we can imagine that no matter which two different points there are that we choose, there will always be another one that we can find in between those two no matter how close the first two points are. In geometry and math, this can be summarized by what is called the "Intermediate Value Theorem". Intuitively it is easy to imagine this but is actually a very very hard thing to prove but has been (and why they have called it a 'theorem')
Where was it "proved"?

We won't presume (pre-assume) this a 'theorem' but something that we might think as just a maybe true thing.

But, hang on, you just said it HAS BEEN proved (already). So, without ANY 'evidence' I am NOT going to might think as 'just a maybe true thing', at all.

Either you HAVE proof or you do NOT. You just stated that it HAS BEEN proved so you MUST HAVE some proof of WHERE this "proof" is.

Just because it is EASY to imagine some thing, then, to me, that in NO way even comes close to implying some thing is true, let alone inferring it is true.

I can just as EASILY imagine half way between two points in space as I can getting to a 'point' where the half way between two points is NOT even worth imagining about, and I end up just SEEING it as one point (in space).
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 11:59 am
So I want to ask you if this idea makes sense so far?
It makes 'sense', in the sense, of some one using some thing, (which they have yet to prove is even true to begin with), in order to get "others" to see, understand, accept, and/or agree with what they, themselves, ALREADY ASSUME and BELIEVE is true. They do this in order to use it back up and support some "theory" they ALREADY have, or to back up and support what they ALREADY ASSUME and BELIEVE is the actual Truth of things.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 11:59 am
That is, do you agree, disagree, or are uncertain of the idea that....

In between ANY two points in space, no matter how close they are, we can always find another point.
This is as simple as; IF you can FIND another point in between ANY two points in space, then just SHOW IT to us.

Until then from what I FIND, when LOOKING FROM the Truly OPEN Mind, is that although it might be possible to do, I wonder WHY do it? What does FINDING supposedly "another" point in between ANY two points actually achieve?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 11:59 am
Do you agree, disagree, are neither or confused?
I agree that it MIGHT BE POSSIBLE to FIND such point. But, since i am some times very curious, I wonder WHY, and so will continue to ask; WHY? And, WHAT is the purpose of saying this?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 11:59 am
[Here we are just beginning from scratch about what you and I can agree or disagree to about this simple idea about space to begin/re-begin our journey.]
If I recall correctly I asked you earlier:

Do you want to TRY TO prove to me some thing about some thing, and if you do, then what is it? Or, do you just want to discuss things, and if done correctly, TOGETHER we FIND OUT what the real and actual Truth of things IS, instead?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 11:59 am
[ I am flexible and so this is by no means the only way to refresh this discussion from. If you prefer a different approach, then just suggest what you might prefer instead. I don't want you to think i'm 'leading' you when I only mean to be trying to work this out as though we are the only ones in the universe wondering about this problem.]
I like the idea of one US two 'wonder about this problem', BUT, first you will have to let me on about 'what this actual "problem" is or is meant to be'? I do NOT want to be the ONLY one left out of this.

First: What is the goal of our discussion?
Second: What "problem" is there that you are seeing/anticipating?
Three: Do you have any intention of what the outcome of the goal will be?
Four: Can we agree on discussing, accepting and agreeing on what the definitions and/or meanings of the words we will that we will be
using in 'our' discussion?
Five: Will you answer ALL of my clarifying questions, OPENLY and Honestly?


By the way to me 'contradiction' is one thing, and 'paradox' is another. Some things, for example, may appear contradictory at first appearance, but NOT until further OPEN and Honest investigation has taken place will the Truth be known.

Age
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sat May 04, 2019 3:29 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 1:36 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 1:13 pm
We currently cannot go below the Planck scale but I would say in principle that there is always a space between two points no
matter how close they might be but without the ability to go all the way to infinite regress it cannot actually be demonstrated

Comparison with math is misleading since it is a fact that there is always another number between any other two
Irrational numbers belong to an infinite set and so unlike the physical world this question has already been solved
The Planck scale is just an arbitrary selective choice of a unit measure. It gets confused by many misinterpreting this to mean there literally is no REAL size smaller. If it were, you'd run into paradoxes and at least relates to the concern about the discovery of irrational numbers. This is the point though. Although I'll wait for Age's reflection on this, you summarized the concerning point I'm attempting to get at:

Because it leads to an infinite regress in math it can or does so in real space and thus it introduces issues concerning the possibility of expansion. The concepts of continuity and the intermediate value theorem are also 'theorems' which suggest logical proof of this, not merely something necessarily indemonstrable.

I can point out other things but also don't want to leave out Age on this discussion. So whatever we could discuss, I'll separate this to respect Age unless he opts to follow.
Separate different numbers, like separate different space, like any other separate different thing is just the human brain at work. Because there is a Truly OPEN Mind, which HAS the ABILITY and allows the IMAGINATION of ANY thing, and the human brain, which can ONLY grasp a conception of ANY thing, literally, by 'separating' ONE thing into many conceivable 'different separate things', this, by itself, does NOT mean there is an ACTUAL 'separate thing'. Because there is an 'I', "we" (a collective 'I') KNOW that there is ONE thing. Now, if the 'I' can ACTUALLY separate ONE thing at all, then just SHOW this, so that 'I' can SEE "it".

Remember, numbers are NOT real things, in and of them self, so dividing or separating them "infinitely" is just some thing that they do. They are just made up by human beings to help them 'make sense' of the "world" or the Universe that they exist within. Now just because a human being made up thing like numbers is divisible, by them only, then that is NOT necessarily a True reflection of the Universe, Itself.

Is the WHOLE Universe ACTUALLY divisible, into separate things?
Is 'space' ACTUALLY divisible, without 'matter'?
Is 'matter' ACTUALLY divisible, without 'space'?

Is 'time' ACTUALLY divisible, without ACTUAL separate 'events'? Are there ACTUAL separate 'events'?

Or, as some people propose here in this forum, is there really just an APPEARANCE of SEPARATION, which is really 'JUST AN ILLUSION'?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat May 04, 2019 3:38 pm

Age wrote:
Do you want to TRY TO prove to me some thing about some thing and if you do then what is it ? Or do you just want to discuss things and
if done correctly TOGETHER we FIND OUT what the real and actual Truth of things IS instead ?
I will answer this even though it was not actually addressed to me

I am no longer interested in proving anything to anyone as I am only interested in the exchange of knowledge and opinion and nothing else
So I am interested in finding out the actual truth of things but on a more general than specific level - what others do is entirely up to them

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat May 04, 2019 3:52 pm

Age wrote:
Is the WHOLE Universe ACTUALLY divisible into separate things ?
Is space ACTUALLY divisible without matter ?
Is matter ACTUALLY divisible without space ?

Is time ACTUALLY divisible without ACTUAL separate events ? Are there ACTUAL separate events ?

Or as some people propose here in this forum is there really just an APPEARANCE of SEPARATION which is really JUST AN ILLUSION ?
The Universe can be divided into separate things
Space can be divided without matter but matter cannot be divided without space
Since more space would need to exist to accommodate the matter after division

Time may not be divisible and may not even exist at all so it could be an illusion albeit a very persistent one

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat May 04, 2019 4:01 pm

Age wrote:
By the way to me contradiction is one thing and paradox is another. Some things for example may appear contradictory at first appearance
but NOT until further OPEN and Honest investigation has taken place will the Truth be known
True paradoxes cannot exist but contradictions can and so the distinction is an important one

Age
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun May 05, 2019 3:12 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 3:38 pm
Age wrote:
Do you want to TRY TO prove to me some thing about some thing and if you do then what is it ? Or do you just want to discuss things and
if done correctly TOGETHER we FIND OUT what the real and actual Truth of things IS instead ?
I will answer this even though it was not actually addressed to me

I am no longer interested in proving anything to anyone as I am only interested in the exchange of knowledge and opinion and nothing else
So I am interested in finding out the actual truth of things but on a more general than specific level - what others do is entirely up to them
Okay this seems great.

Could it be possible that what is observed, that is; an expanding Universe, actually be explained in another way that fills in those "gaps" that scientists are still LOOKING FOR?

It was, after all, only in the past few weeks that some scientists are now saying the Universe is expanding at a greater rate than realized and accepted previously, which would make the Universe not as old as previously suggested/assumed/believed it was, but which now contradicts those stars, which are said be actually older than the "new" suggested age of the Universe.

It appears that the more human beings LOOK, the more contradictions are coming-to-light.

I have absolutely NO scientific intellect, nor ANY intellectual knowledge for that matter, so I have NO credentials worthy to be heard. But, from my perspective and from what I have observed, to my, the VIEW I have there are NO gaps. But that is NOT to say through discussions with "others" that they will SHOW me where the gaps/WRONGS are in my VIEWS, which is what I would like to be informed of.

If we want to Truly discuss this with the intention of FINDING what is the actual Truth of things, then what i found is it is better to start with absolutely NO assumption nor belief about what IS actually happening. For example if any one states some thing like; But the Universe IS expanding, then there is really NOTHING to discuss because they are stating what IS actually happening, therefore they ALREADY KNOW what the actual Truth IS. And, therefore there is NOTHING to find here regarding this.

Now, if any one wants to proceed lets us say from what 'we', human beings, have observed hitherto, when this is written, is; the part of the Universe 'we', human beings, CAN observe there is an appearance of expansion happening in some parts of that observed part, while there is also an appearance of contraction in other parts, of that observable part of the Universe. If ALL of the ones in this discussion agree with this, then for ALL of 'us' that is the actual Truth of things, SO far. Does any one disagree or would like to point out any thing else here?

If yes, then please express.
If no, then do we want to move on?

Age
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun May 05, 2019 3:27 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 3:52 pm
Age wrote:
Is the WHOLE Universe ACTUALLY divisible into separate things ?
Is space ACTUALLY divisible without matter ?
Is matter ACTUALLY divisible without space ?

Is time ACTUALLY divisible without ACTUAL separate events ? Are there ACTUAL separate events ?

Or as some people propose here in this forum is there really just an APPEARANCE of SEPARATION which is really JUST AN ILLUSION ?
The Universe can be divided into separate things
Physically or conceptually or both?

If you say it can physically, then how?
Can you name things that are physically separate, and name what it is that separates them?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 3:52 pm
Space can be divided without matter but matter cannot be divided without space
How do you divide space without matter?

Since more space would need to exist to accommodate the matter after division[/quote]

'We' you and me might have different definitions for what 'space' is?

My definition for 'space' is; the distance between and around matter. From this definition I have yet to see how space could be divided, but I am OPEN for your explanation.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 3:52 pm
Time may not be divisible and may not even exist at all so it could be an illusion albeit a very persistent one
Space may not be divisible and may not even exist at all (as one in this forum used to TRY TO argue for quite often) so it could be an illusion, also, albeit a very persistent one.

What that person used to argue FOR about there being NO space, although seeming absurd, can be expressed in sound, valid argument form. Although, that argument just has NOT been formulated yet. Just like the sound, valid argument for there being NO time, has just NOT been formulated yet, as well.

The actual and real Truth of things does NOT come from just one person formulating an argument. The Truth comes from what ALL agree with, which then the sound, valid argument comes-to-light, in a sense, by itself. It is is NOT up to just one person to REVEAL the Truth, but it is from ALL as One the Truth comes-to-light or is REVEALED.

Age
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun May 05, 2019 3:30 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 4:01 pm
Age wrote:
By the way to me contradiction is one thing and paradox is another. Some things for example may appear contradictory at first appearance
but NOT until further OPEN and Honest investigation has taken place will the Truth be known
True paradoxes cannot exist but contradictions can and so the distinction is an important one
Here we go again; What is a 'true' paradox?

Is it 'true' because it IS, or because from your 'relative' perspective it is?

What is a 'true' paradox compared to a 'normal' or just plain 'paradox'?

I have ALREADY given my definition for the word 'paradox'. How does this differ from a 'true' paradox?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest